Star Formation and why evolution is not true

TeddyKGB · Jul 3, 2008

True_Blue said:
Chalnoth, it sounds more plausible to believe that where you see gas clouds, you'll also see younger stars, not because the stars arose from the gas cloud, but because the original star broke into pieces, forming smaller stars, and did not perfectly diffuse into a gas cloud.

"Broke into pieces"? Have you heard previously of such a phenomenon, or did you make it up just now?

mpok1519 · Jul 3, 2008

Ive never heard of that either...

Chalnoth · Jul 3, 2008

True_Blue said:
Energy entropy is a subset of a broader universal "law" that has not been properly enunciated/agreed to.

Entropy is fully defined as being a number proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates that can replicate the same macrostate. What does this mean?

Well, a microstate is the full, exact description of a particular state. For example, the microstate of a volume of gas consists of the positions and velocities of each and every molecule in the gas.

A macrostate is some measure over these molecules. For a gas, for instance, one can fully define how the gas behaves by just keeping track of a few quantities, such as pressure, temperature, and volume. Because the behavior of the gas is fully specified by these variables, this is what is known as the macrostate.

So, we can then ask the question, which macrostates are more likely? Well, it's just a counting exercise: every single possible set of velocities and positions of air molecules are identical, so we need merely add up the number of specific microstates that determine a particular set of pressure, temperature, and volume parameters. Those states that have more states that can look like them are those that are more probable: they are higher-entropy states.

The second law comes from this simple fact: if we take a group of molecules that is in some low-entropy state, chances are the velocities and positions of each molecule will, with time, end up in a higher-entropy state, just because there are more higher-entropy states to move into.

And basically, what we find when we add gravity to the mix is that collapsed objects have more potential microstates than diffuse objects, so a collapsed state is a higher-entropy state.

LewisWildermuth · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
Chalnoth, it sounds more plausible to believe that where you see gas clouds, you'll also see younger stars, not because the stars arose from the gas cloud, but because the original star broke into pieces, forming smaller stars, and did not perfectly diffuse into a gas cloud.

The gas cloud theory will have merit if astronomers take a picture of a gas cloud that looks like the artist rendering below, save with a star at the center rather than a black hole.

Why do you think that star formation should look like a really bad artist rendering of the accretion disk of a black hole?

Seriously, why do you think that star formation should look anything like that?

JBJoe · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
Energy entropy is a subset of a broader universal "law" that has not been properly enunciated/agreed to.

Go back and re-study thermodynamics. Regardless of whether such a broader universal "law" exists, entropy is well defined. You are misusing it.

ChordatesLegacy · Jul 4, 2008

True Blue wrote:

ChordatesLegacy, besides being uninterested in invective, I'm a little puzzled about the paragraph about Adam and Eve above. It does indeed look like pure rubbish.

It is pure rubbish, the reason I posted it, is because the article you linked above on galaxy spiral arms was written by the same person. Now; the question is, are you still going to take the ramblings of this person seriously.

When I look at pictures of spiral arms, it sure looks to me like there is more mass in the spiral arms than in intervening space,

This is because there are more young stars in the arms, NOT MORE MASS.

just as there is more water vapor in the spiral arms of hurricanes.

No; this analogy is not a good one.

Is the opposite conclusion--that the mass is uniform--based a priori on the assumption that the spiral arms contain more "young" stars.

No; it is based on gravitational modelling of galaxies.

Infering mass from EM spectrum signals in the absence of calibration requires assumptions, and those assumptions must be tested.

Do me a favour and stop talking nonsense.

Anyways, do you have a nice, elegant explanation for how spiral arms compress gas clouds?

Yes; this has already been explained by DENSITY WAVE THEORY, but you take absolutely no notice of real science, and put your faith in the likes of (C Johnson, Pastor,A Christ Walk Church Christian and physicist, Physics Degree from University of Chicago) who by you own admission writes a pile of crap.

[The Bible says God destroyed mankind in part because they were interbreeding with demons, not other people, creating the Nephilim (giants) that form the basis of Greek and other mythologies--Hercules, for example. It seems that demons who commit the crime of interfering with humans too closely (possession, interbreeding, etc), are cast into the abyss. That's why the legion of demons Jesus encountered was so incredibly terrified when Jesus approached. They were scared that Jesus would cast them into the abyss for possessing the man. He had mercy on the demons and cast them into a herd of pigs instead. The paragraph above, which seems very out-of-place in this discussion, looks like a feeble and misguided attempt to combine evolution with the Bible.]

The paragraph was written by the same person (named above) as the article you seemed to put faith in, where spiral galaxies are concerned, now do you still put faith in him, after reading what else he writes.

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

TeddyKGB said:
I bet that was UH's point. Models of the early universe do not posit the existence of matter-as-we-know-it until at least Planck Time.

Sounds like a heavy component of faith at work in such models.

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

TeddyKGB said:
"Broke into pieces"? Have you heard previously of such a phenomenon, or did you make it up just now?

I made it up, but I think it's the better explanation. We've only got seven or so observed supernova data-points since 1600. Moreover, if a star like Canis Majoris went nova, it's easy to imagine that several pieces of it, perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands, might go on to form new cohesive stars.

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

LewisWildermuth said:
Why do you think that star formation should look like a really bad artist rendering of the accretion disk of a black hole?

Seriously, why do you think that star formation should look anything like that?

To go from a gas cloud to a star, some small object would have to draw more gas into it to turn the small massive object into an enormous massive object--the star. We should be able to observe gas swirling around and into such object (protostar), if that theory were true. Instead, we see stable gas giants, stars with no accretion, and ordinary gas clouds. If the gas cloud theory were true, it would take only one picture to completely prove me wrong. I've been looking, but haven't found it.

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

ChordatesLegacy said:
True Blue wrote:

ChordatesLegacy, besides being uninterested in invective, I'm a little puzzled about the paragraph about Adam and Eve above. It does indeed look like pure rubbish.

It is pure rubbish, the reason I posted it, is because the article you linked above on galaxy spiral arms was written by the same person. Now; the question is, are you still going to take the ramblings of this person seriously.

CL, please read post #72. I had already conceded your point on the credibility of that particular author. I had no particular vested interest in anything he said.

I read the Wikipedia article earlier, but I don't see how such a theory can be applied to star formation. How would spiral arms, which are themselves extremely dilute, generate enough gravity to compress gas clouds into stars? Any local gravity locus would be centered on another star, not an empty point in space, and the solar wind of said star would just blow any approaching gas away from it.

ChordatesLegacy · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
I read the Wikipedia article earlier, but I don't see how such a theory can be applied to star formation. How would spiral arms, which are themselves extremely dilute, generate enough gravity to compress gas clouds into stars? Any local gravity locus would be centered on another star, not an empty point in space, and the solar wind of said star would just blow any approaching gas away from it.

You may, or may not have read the following, but it explains it better than i could.

Density_wave_theory

The Density Wave Theory also explains a number of other observations that have been made about spiral galaxies. For example, "the ordering of H I clouds and dust bands on the inner edges of spiral arms, the existence of young, massive stars and H II regions throughout the arms, and an abundance of old, red stars in the remainder of the disk"[8]. Basically, when clouds of gas and dust enter into a density wave and are compressed the rate of star formation increases as some clouds meet the Jeans criterion, and collapse to form new stars. Since star formation does not happen immediately, the stars are slightly behind the density waves. The hot OB stars that are created ionize the gas of the interstellar medium, and form H II regions. These stars have relatively short lifetimes, however, and expire before fully leaving the density wave. The smaller, redder stars do leave the wave, and become distributed throughout the galactic disk.

LewisWildermuth · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
To go from a gas cloud to a star, some small object would have to draw more gas into it to turn the small massive object into an enormous massive object--the star. We should be able to observe gas swirling around and into such object (protostar), if that theory were true. Instead, we see stable gas giants, stars with no accretion, and ordinary gas clouds. If the gas cloud theory were true, it would take only one picture to completely prove me wrong. I've been looking, but haven't found it.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr02/pr0201.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2008/01/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2007/28/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2007/02/

There are more, this was just after one google search for protoplanitary disks.

Did you even look?

ChordatesLegacy · Jul 4, 2008

For True Blue

This Hubble Space Telescope mosaic gives us a beautiful view of the fertile star-forming region "30 Doradus Nebula." High-energy ultraviolet radiation and intense pressures of stellar winds produced by stars in the cluster (the large blue blob left of center) trigger the collapse of parts of the gas and dust clouds, producing a new generation of stars. Supernova explosions might also trigger the collapse of interstellar clouds

1. Where is the new generation of stars?
The new stellar nursery is about 30 to 50 light-years from the central cluster. Most of the stars in the nursery are not visible because they are still encased in their cocoons of gas and dust.
The stars formed from the collapse of huge clouds of dust and gas around the massive star cluster, R136. Powerful "stellar winds" (streams of material traveling at several million miles an hour) released by the R136 cluster are compressing the inner regions of the gas and dust clouds. The intense pressure is triggering the collapse of parts of the clouds, producing a new generation of star formation around the central cluster.
2. How did the pillar-like structures form?

Previous Hubble telescope observations revealed that the process of "triggered" star formation often involves massive pillars of material that point toward the central cluster. Such pillars form when particularly dense clouds of gas and dust shield columns of material behind them from the blistering radiation and strong winds released by massive stars, like the stars in R136. This protected material becomes the pillars where stars can form and grow. The Hubble telescope first spied these pillars of stellar creation when it captured close-up views of the Eagle Nebula.
The new image of 30 Doradus shows numerous pillars — each several light-years long — oriented toward the central cluster. These pillars, which resemble tiny fingers, are similar in size to those in the Eagle Nebula.
3. How massive are the stars in the R136 cluster?

R136 contains several dozen of the most massive stars known, each about 100 times the mass of the Sun and about 10 times as hot. These stellar behemoths all formed at the same time about 2 million

LINK

birdan · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
I made it up, but I think it's the better explanation. We've only got seven or so observed supernova data-points since 1600. Moreover, if a star like Canis Majoris went nova, it's easy to imagine that several pieces of it, perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands, might go on to form new cohesive stars.

What really intrigues me is the mindset of creationists such as True_Blue, who seem to sincerely believe that something they just "made up" trumps the collective work of thousands of very smart people whose conclusions are based on reams of observations with a rigorous mathematical foundation.

There seems to be no question in these people's minds that simply making things up has equal footing with excruciatingly detailed mathematical models, worked out over many years and supported by observational evidence. True_Blue has demonstrated at best a cursory knowledge of astronomy but has never indicated that his lack of depth in the subject may make his arguments suspect. A nice article I found talks about this phenomena:

unskilled and unaware of it

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

TeddyKGB · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
Sounds like a heavy component of faith at work in such models.

Oh, it's all faith. That's why multiple billions are spent on supercomputer modeling and hadron colliding. Because that's what people of faith do.*

* The preceding sarcasm has been brought to you by People Who Have Nearly Had It With Intelligence-Free Creationist Boilerplate.

Chalnoth · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
To go from a gas cloud to a star, some small object would have to draw more gas into it to turn the small massive object into an enormous massive object--the star. We should be able to observe gas swirling around and into such object (protostar), if that theory were true. Instead, we see stable gas giants, stars with no accretion, and ordinary gas clouds. If the gas cloud theory were true, it would take only one picture to completely prove me wrong. I've been looking, but haven't found it.

That's not how it works. A chunk of the gas cloud as a whole collapses into a star. Once it does so, usually there isn't much of any gas around it to absorb, and so it remains relatively stable as the nuclear reaction at its core progresses.

TeddyKGB · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
I made it up, but I think it's the better explanation. We've only got seven or so observed supernova data-points since 1600. Moreover, if a star like Canis Majoris went nova, it's easy to imagine that several pieces of it, perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands, might go on to form new cohesive stars.

You made it up.

In lieu of a pointless rebuttal incapable of piercing your dogma-bonded, doctrinally-hardened, self-important rhetorical shell, I'm just going to repeat that sentence a few times.

You made it up.

You made it up.

You made it up.

You made it up.

You know, this would be a great time to show everyone that you possess the Christian virtue of humility and admit you lack expertise in this matter. You don't even have to submit to an analysis of your cognitive dissonance; just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

I, for one, would be impressed.

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

ChordatesLegacy said:
Basically, when clouds of gas and [/I]dust enter into a density wave and are compressed the rate of star formation increases as some clouds meet the Jeans criterion, and collapse to form new stars.

This is the part that I'm having trouble with, CL. Also, here is a quote about Jeans Criteria: "The Jeans instability causes the collapse of interstellar gas clouds and subsequent star formation. It occurs when the internal gas pressure is not strong enough to prevent gravitational collapse of a region filled with matter." Sure, it's clear that one could conceive a gravitational force strong enough to overcome the chemical repulsive forces--black holes. But in spiral arms, what generates that gravitational force, and on what object is such gravitational force centered? A point in empty space?

This quote later in the Wikipedia article is interesting, but it may not be particularly relevant:

"It was later pointed out by other astrophysicists that in fact, the original analysis used by Jeans was flawed, for the following reason. In his formal analysis, Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium. In fact, because all scales greater than the Jeans length are also unstable to collapse, any initially static medium surrounding a collapsing region will in fact also be collapsing. As a result, the growth rate of the gravitational instability relative to the density of the collapsing background is slower than that predicted by Jeans' original analysis. This flaw has come to be known as the "Jeans swindle".

True_Blue · Jul 4, 2008

LewisWildermuth said:
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr02/pr0201.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2008/01/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2007/28/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/star/protoplanetary-disk/2007/02/

There are more, this was just after one google search for protoplanitary disks.

Did you even look?

You put in a very good effort, LW. This is very, very good evidence on the formation of planets, like Jupiter and Saturn.

Chalnoth · Jul 4, 2008

True_Blue said:
This is the part that I'm having trouble with, CL. Also, here is a quote about Jeans Criteria: "The Jeans instability causes the collapse of interstellar gas clouds and subsequent star formation. It occurs when the internal gas pressure is not strong enough to prevent gravitational collapse of a region filled with matter." Sure, it's clear that one could conceive a gravitational force strong enough to overcome the chemical repulsive forces--black holes. But in spiral arms, what generates that gravitational force, and on what object is such gravitational force centered? A point in empty space?

This quote later in the Wikipedia article is interesting, but it may not be particularly relevant:

"It was later pointed out by other astrophysicists that in fact, the original analysis used by Jeans was flawed, for the following reason. In his formal analysis, Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium. In fact, because all scales greater than the Jeans length are also unstable to collapse, any initially static medium surrounding a collapsing region will in fact also be collapsing. As a result, the growth rate of the gravitational instability relative to the density of the collapsing background is slower than that predicted by Jeans' original analysis. This flaw has come to be known as the "Jeans swindle".

So? Later analyses take this into account, and don't affect the overall picture. Sure, Jeans' initial calculation was off. We've since corrected for that. It just means that the collapse doesn't proceed at quite the same rate that Jeans originally calculated.

As for what generates the "force" in spiral arms, much of the time it's radiative cooling. Basically, these gas clouds exist at a finite temperature which is usually much greater than that of their surroundings, so they are continually radiating. To conserve energy, the individual gas molecules lose energy and the cloud collapses. This collapse continues until the gas cloud is dense enough to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction.

Star Formation and why evolution is not true

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Member

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Regular Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Senior Contributor

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency